Sgt Joch
-
Posts
4,559 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Sgt Joch
-
-
... therefore sometime soon we're going to introduce real IBCTs into CM:SF.
...just what we need...more work...
-
good luck. watch your butt out there.
-
Certainly the Iraqi government, military, businessmen, tourism industry and everybody else with interest to military or civilian aviation would find that a convenient and friendly gesture. You still might first want to ask their opinion about it, just as a matter of formality.
That why I said "if all else fails", obviously if the Iraqis wont let the US have the bases, I doubt they will grant overfly right.
-
to expand.
Eisenhower bugged out in six months in '53 and had no domestic blowback.
Ideally, you would want to keep some bases in country so your troops could intervene quickly if there is a crisis, much like the US kept troops for a long time in Germany, Japan and Korea.
Alternatively or concurrently, establish a no-fly zone over the entire country so you can "suppress" any problem from the air.
If all else fails, we can keep watch over the whole country with satellites. The USAF and USN can intervene within hours and we can keep troops on standby in Kuwait.
...with all of these decisions being made by a 47 year old former university professor.........
-
Regarding Iraq, I think it is a safe bet that the Obama administration will declare victory and get the troops out as fast as possible. Thats what Eisenhower did in Korea.
Staying in is politically dangerous. At this stage, his options, both domestically and in Iraq are extremely limited and will not affect the outcome. In addition, as Nixon found out, if you wait too long, it becomes your war.
Obama is too smart a politician not to realize this.
-
President-elect Obama!
I never thought I would see a black man elected president of the United States of America in my lifetime.
He is the embodiement of the american ideal that any US citizen can grow up to become president.
He has a tough job ahead, there are a lot of problems to solve and the expectations are so high.
I for one, will give him the benefit of the doubt during this honeymoon period...I wont start criticizing his decisions until next week
-
this thread seems to be all over the place and I am not sure what we are arguing about anymore...
...now back to Iraq...
But back to your main question/premise above.......I woudl say.....What if it turns out just the opposite of your description. In the heart of the ME (and within Stan as well). Well then, we've helped to change the world. And events like such don't happen all that often.....maybe once in peoples life times does the world actually change......... And this will be a clear change for the better. An undeniable change for the better.
If that turns out to be the case, I will be the first one to admit I was wrong...but let us look at Iraq in november 2008...
The government is controlled by a majority of Shia parties which are closely allied with or made up of the same Shiite militias which were responsible for the bulk of the atrocities committed against the Sunni population since 2003.
The same politicians have very close relations with Iran; they share the same religion, many spent their years in exile from the Hussein regime in Iran and Iran has done all it can to cultivate friendly relations with them.
This is not going to change since the US is doing all it can to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. It has been handing control of the provinces and of the Sunni militias back to the Iraqi government.
Based on those facts, you are looking at:
best case scenario: semi-democratic Iraq, dominated by Shiites, with close relations with Iran;
middle case scenario: Iraqi islamist republic, dominated by Iran;
worst case scenario: full scale civil war between the Shiiites and the Sunnis.
However, as I have said before, I tend to be a pessimist which is not surprising since I am a lawyer in RL and therefore tend to see the worst in people.
If someone can argue a different result based on actual facts, then lets hear it...
-
I've grown sick of the arrogant, ignorant, timid, handwringing about the world by some today without the balls to roll up our sleeves and smack bad guys in the mouth.....even when that is damn difficult....or going to be a lengthly process that has backwards steps every once in a while. The world is simply too small and too mass casualty dangerous any longer to tolerate such.
And your point is?
Do you really think that people who play tactical wargames and hang around a wargaming forum do not believe that war is a legitimate foreign policy tool?
I doubt anyone around here is losing sleep over the fact that Saddam Hussein or Abu Ghadiya eventually got what they deserve.
However, if there is anything history has taught us, it is that war is a tool which should be very carefully wielded. If the ultimate result of the Iraq War is yet another anti-american regime in Baghdad, I doubt anyone will say it was a success.
-
I doubt that the Syrians gave the US the green light. That would only make sense if the Syrians also had a reason to eliminate Abu Ghadiya on their own. However if that was the case, they would have done the job themselves. The Syrian security services have never had any qualms about killing anyone who proves "troublesome" to the regime, and they usually do a very professional job.
Letting the US do their dirty work for them is not their style..its usually the other way around (i.e. rendition program
). Plus, from the US point of view, tipping off the Syrians is dangerous, if the Syrians did not agree, Abu Ghadiya would have been whisked away to safety.The lack of response by the Syrian air defences is not determinative either. The IAF has been able to penetrate Syrian air space for years without any problems, for example when they struck the suspected Syrian nuclear site in 2007.
-
Yes, it has been fixed for 1.11
-
.
And finally again having been there just last year, Iraq is getting better by the day, why do all you guys refuse to acknowledge that?!!!
It's not that we don't acknowledge it. It is clear that the recent moves by the US, namely the "surge" and other moves have helped to lower the violence in 2008 as opposed to prior years, the issue is more what will happen after the US leaves...I tend to hold a fairly apocalyptic view, so put me in the "pessimists" club.
-
Steve,
Why not simply add the thing to the BFC Bookshelf? Seems highly relevant!
Sgt Joch,
Have you read Dupuy's ELUSIVE VICTORY: The Arab-Israeli Wars 1947-1974? If yes, what did you think of it? Regarding your Iran attack being a bad idea, "Holy unending hordes of fanatical Pasdaran, Batman!"
Regards,
John Kettler
JK, I am not familiar with Dupuy's book and cannot comment but would also appreciate a review from someone who has.
-
Do we really want a comparison of who has taken in more people willingly from around the world?...and given them more rights and chances for themselves to shape their own futures.....Please.
Whats the matter...question is too tough for you?
-
Meade95,
Regarding the humanitarian impulses of the USA, perhaps you would care to comment on why the US has let in less than 20,000 refugees from Iraq since 2003 while Sweden has taken in more than 80,000 and "evil" Syria has let in
1-1.5 million.
-
Another plug for Pollack's "Arabs at War". It is the only one volume english language general history book dealing with the military history of the ME from the Arab side.
He covers every war in the ME from 1945, including a very good analysis of Iraqi performance against Iran in the 1980-88 war (that chapter alone should convince readers why a war against Iran is not a good idea
). -
...this is the point of view of the most important ally of the US in the region...
Syria’s fury is justified — Who can blame Damascus for getting cosy with Moscow?THE US has once again “targeted foreign fighters” as part of its so-called war on terror. But these “fighters” were all Syrian civilians, including four youngsters. Another five individuals have been hospitalized after being shot by US Special Forces. Washington has admitted perpetrating this tragic incident but insists the victims were terrorists just as it does when its fighter jets illegally cross the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and end up wiping out entire families. Syria describes the adult victims as construction workers.
Even the pro-American Afghan leader Hamid Karzai is fed up with the Pentagon’s trigger-happy policies that exact such a terrible toll on innocent civilian life. The problem is there is no international oversight on US military activities. There is no investigation into these murders and the world is expected to take every utterance from the US military as gospel.
Contrast this with the way Syria was taken to task for its alleged (and as yet unproven) involvement in the assassination of pro-Western Lebanese politicians and journalists. Just imagine the outcry and repercussions if the shoe were on the other foot and Syrian jets invaded Iraq airspace to take out US targets. Worse, the US is unrepentant. The Associated Press quotes a US official saying his country is “taking matters into our own hands” due to Syria’s lack of cooperation — a statement that certainly does not bode well for the future and illustrates Washington’s steadfast belief in its own exceptionalism.
No other country barring Israel would be allowed to get away with such brutal behavior. Last year, if you recall, Israel bombed a Syrian military site saying it was destined to be a nuclear reactor. Syria vehemently denied this claim and the director-general of the international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, condemned the attack saying “the unilateral use of force by Israel” undermines “the due process of verification that is at the heart of the nonproliferation regime”.
BY anyone’s moral or legal reckoning, the attack on a Syrian farm was a crime against humanity and should not be tolerated by either Syria or the international community bearing in mind that although Syrian-US relations are frosty the two countries are not at war.
Moreover it is not strategically helpful coming at a time when Washington is trying to prize the Syrians out of Iran’s arms and Israel is seeking a peace deal in exchange for return of the Golan Heights. In this case, who can blame Damascus for getting cosy with Russia, which is constructing permanent naval bases in two Syrian ports? Moscow is also thought to be supplying Syria with advanced weaponry and sophisticated air-defense systems as well as the nuclear-capable 200 km range Iskander missiles, set to greatly erode Israel’s regional military superiority.
Syria fell out of favor with Washington and its Western allies in 2003 when President Bashar Assad railed at the invasion of Iraq, which he considered was not mandated by UN Security Council resolutions. In fact, he was quite right as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later admitted. Yet, being right didn’t prevent Syria being treated as a rogue nation from then on. It had to be punished for not towing the line. And in 2003, the US Senate overwhelmingly passed the Syrian Accountability Act that imposed sanctions on Damascus for its support of “terrorists and nuclear proliferation activities”. The fact that Syria had hitherto willingly cooperated in the war on terror and there was no proof it sought nuclear weapons stood for nothing.
This sea change in attitudes must have been a blow to President Bashar, who just a year earlier had enjoyed tea with the British queen and was treated royally by Downing Street.
It’s surely time for the US to quit Iraq. It’s done enough damage during the five years since “shock and awe” and the Bush administration should not be rewarded with a signed Status of Forces pact that allows US forces to remain in the country until at least 2011.
The pact is deeply unpopular with the Iraqi Cabinet and ordinary people but Washington warns of “dire consequences” if it isn’t embraced in its current form well before Dec. 31 — the expiry date of the current UN mandate covering the American presence in Iraq. Such “consequences” include an end to US support of the Iraqi economy and aid to the Iraqi military according to Iraqi Vice President Tariq Al-Hashimi, who has likened the threats to “blackmail”.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki believes that signing the agreement would be akin to “political suicide”. Moreover it may affect Iraq’s relationship with neighbors Iran and Syria. President-hopeful Barack Obama, whom polls currently place nine points ahead of his rival, is keen to quit Iraq in order to concentrate efforts in Afghanistan. Iraq would, therefore, be best advised to ignore US threats and stall signing the pact until the US election on Nov. 4. The same advice can be given to Syria. The recent bloody incursion into its territory was an outrage. There is absolutely no excuse for it and in a world without double standards the US should be made to pay for its arrogance. But at the same time there is hope. Will the next US administration work toward repairing the wrongs of its predecessor and reach out to other nations or will it engage in more of the same? Now that is the question those who live in this neighborhood are desperate to have answered.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=115872&d=28&m=10&y=2008
as you may know, nothing gets printed in the Kingdom unless it has the tacit approval of the government.
-
It is hard to figure out whether the impact of the raid was sufficiently thought out (probably not). Based on reports, the CIA received actionable intelligence over the weekend and the order was given resulting in the apparent death of a top AQ leader.
However, the route which they "closed" was already largely irrelevant. The US has successfully coopted Sunni groups in Iraq both as a counterpoint to the influence of Iran in Iraq and to defeat the so called "Al-Quaida in mesopotamia". Foreign fighters have been no more than a nuisance factor for the past year in Iraq.
The Bush administration still makes the mistake of viewing the world as being made up of monolithic blocs of either US allies or enemies.
Syria is not an Iranian stooge. The only interest of the Assad family is to stay in power and they are doing what they can to navigate the treacherous waters of ME politics. They are allied with Iran based on current mutual interests.
The Assad family's position in Syria is increasingly fragile. They are from the Alawi sect, officially shiites running a country where 75% of the population is Sunni. Basher Assad is by all accounts secular and his wife is a Sunni who was raised in england. He has more affinity with the west than with the Mullahs in Teheran (although by all acounts he can be as brutal a dictator as Saddam Hussein was).
Even though the syrian army left lebanon, syria has been trying to maintain control through proxies, with the key one being Hizbollah which is close to Iran. Syria wants to reestablish contacts with the west, but they are worried about the final report on the Hariri assassination which should come out soon and which may again brand Syria as a "pariah" state.
Syria has actually been quite helpful with the US, they have intercepted a large number of foreign fighters coming into Syria, increased security along the Iraq border and took in 1-1.5 million Iraqi refugees during the worst of the fighting.
However, Syria realizes that if Iraq descends into civil war after the US leaves, they will not be able to just stand by and let Iraqi Sunnis be massacred, even if that puts them in conflict with Iran. Therefore, they cannot afford to cut all their ties to Sunni extremists, even if they are unpalatable to the US.
There are also reports that the US has been trying to detach Syria away from Iran. If the US made a reasonable effort, it could easily pry Syria away from Iran, the question has always been what the US is willing to offer in return: a freer hand in Lebanon? modern weapons? the Golan Heights? ...
All of which makes the reasons for the raid hard to explain. Its military value is dubious and its immediate impact will be to strengthen the Iran-Syria alliance.
-
I presume you are being sarcastic.
The Karzai government is deeply corrupt and heavily involved in the drug trade. Much of the revival of the Taliban is a reflection of this. The Karzai government would not last 6 months if western troops stopped propping it up.
The Iraqi government is only waiting until US troops leave for a final settling of account with the Sunnis, the most likely result of which will a shiite dominated Iraq closely allied with Iran. This is the nightmare that Syria and Saudi Arabia dread, that they will be sucked in an Iraqi civil war to protect the sunni minority.
-
There are rumors that the 105 mm gun was chosen simply because General Dynamics, which manufactures the Strykers, had the rights to that gun.
The gun has caused all sorts of problems however, since it was never designed to be placed on such a light chassis.
-
I suspect the gun choice on the MGS, as well as the limited ammo, was dictated by size and weight restrictions since the SBCT is supposed to be air deployable in 96 hours.
-
we have to remember the MGS was designed to be a mobile gun platform to support a SBCT.
It was designed to carry a 105mm gun to provide quick direct fire support to the SBCT dismounts; based on a stryker platform, so it could be deployed as quickly and benefit from the advantages of a common platform.
In game, it should be held behind the front line, to be able to provide quick direct fire support to clean up bunkers, buildings, trench lines, vehicles, etc; In that role it works quite well.
The Abrams has better sensors because it was designed to be able to kill the best enemy tanks in the world, the MGS was not.
-
I always found the MGS had a problem spotting enemy units. Is that how the MGS performs in the field or is a problem in CMSF? I thought it would be bristling with all kinds of high-tech sensors etc..
apparently, it is like that in real life as well.
-
The MGS ammo may be an issue, although in cases where I have seen the MGS fire the first shot, it usually gets the kill.
The bigger problem is that the MGS in game is nearly blind, so that it rarely gets the all important first shot.
The MGS is not an anti-armour vehicle, it is there to provide fire support to the SBCT dismounted infantry.
Your Javelin team is your designated tank killer.
-
RUN!!!....RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!! :eek:
Actually, the only viable and effective tactic is using your javelin armed dismounted infantry to deal with the enemy armour while your strykers remain out of LOS. It works very well on defence and is also a viable option on offence, if you are careful.
I have seen ATGM strykers and MGS take out syrian tanks, but that is a much more iffy proposition.
Light Infantry Battalion in US Army - how to simulate?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
look here..
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/bct-infantry.htm